With a tight race for Sen. Richard Lugar’s (R-Ind.) seat in the balance, Republicans didn’t appear ready to do a quick disowning of Richard Mourdock as they did with Rep. Todd Akin (R-Mo.).

There was some GOP condemnation of the Indiana state treasurer, some support, and more silence toward the party’s Senate candidate in the wake of comments made at a Tuesday night debate.

Asked about abortion in the case of rape, Mourdock said, “I struggled with it myself for a long time, but I came to realize life is that gift from God. And I think even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something that God intended to happen.”

The state Democratic Party quickly pushed out a video of the comment titled “Mourdock: God Intended Rape.” The Democrat running for the Lugar seat, Rep. Joe Donnelly, released his own statement: “The God I believe in and the God I know most Hoosiers believe in, does not intend for rape to happen — ever,” Donnelly said in a statement. “What Mr. Mourdock said is shocking, and it is stunning that he would be so disrespectful to survivors of rape.”

By this morning, Dems were off and running with the comment.

“I think it’s clear that Mitt Romney, that many Republicans who are running office, including him — including Mr Mourdock, have very extreme positions on issues that women care deeply about in this country, and that if they have the opportunity to be partners in the White House and in the Senate, that that’s something women should have and will have concern about as they’re going to the voting booths,” Obama’s traveling campaign press secretary, Jen Psaki, told reporters aboard Air Force One en route to Iowa.

The Democratic National Committee tried to spin the brewing scandal toward Mitt Romney, noting that Mourdock is the only Senate candidate the presidential hopeful has endorsed on camera this election cycle besides Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah).

“To think that we’ve had three incidents this year with candidates, all Republicans, all men talking about rape as either, is it legitimate rape? In this case, is it ordained? And Mr. Walsh recently coming out with yet another comment about rape. So I mean there’s a problem in the Republican Party,” Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said on MSNBC.

In addition to Akin’s “legitimate rape” comment, she was referring to Pennsylvania Senate candidate Tom Smith, who made “less than artful” (in the words of his campaign) remarks about how pregnancy from rape is “similar” to when his daughter got pregnant out of wedlock, and Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Ill.) who, when asked about abortion if a woman’s “life is at issue,” said, “There is no such exception. With modern technology and science, you can’t find one instance.”

“Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock, and Mr. Mourdock’s comments do not reflect Gov. Romney’s views,” Romney campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said in a statement. “We disagree on the policy regarding exceptions for rape and incest but still support him.” The campaign has not asked Mourdock to pull a TV ad featuring Romney pitching for the Senate candidate.

“I strongly disagree with the statement made by Richard Mourdock during last night’s Senate debate,” Pence said. “I urge him to apologize.”

Pence’s challenger, Democrat John R. Gregg, tried to spin the statement to questioning pro-life Pence’s own stances on abortion exemptions.

Mourdock called a news conference today to try to tamp down the outcry, stressing he believes “life itself is the greatest gift that God can give us” and that he abhors violence.

“I’m a much more humble person this morning, because so many people mistook, twisted, came to misunderstand the points that I was trying to make,” he said. “And if, because of the lack of clarity in my words, that they came away with an impression other than those that I stated a moment ago, that life is precious and that I abhor violence and I’m confident God abhors violence and rape, if they came away with any impression other than that, I truly regret it. I apologize if they came away.”

“Richard and I, along with millions of Americans – including even Joe Donnelly – believe that life is a gift from God. To try and construe his words as anything other than a restatement of that belief is irresponsible and ridiculous. In fact, rather than condemning him for his position, as some in his party have when it’s come to Republicans, I commend Congressman Donnelly for his support of life,” Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) said in an NRSC statement today.

Bridget Johnson is a veteran journalist whose news articles and opinion columns have run in dozens of news outlets across the globe. Bridget first came to Washington to be online editor at The Hill, where she wrote The World from The Hill column on foreign policy. Previously she was an opinion writer and editorial board member at the Rocky Mountain News and nation/world news columnist at the Los Angeles Daily News.
She is an NPR contributor and has contributed to USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, National Review Online, Politico and more, and has myriad television and radio credits as a commentator. Bridget is Washington Editor for PJ Media.

Click here to view the 124 legacy comments

Click here to hide legacy comments

124 Comments, 33 Threads

1.
Paula Bolyard

Personally, I’m getting tired of the flaccid responses from the RNC, RNCC, et al. Is it a baby or isn’t it? If a candidate is pro-life and he believes it’s a baby, let’s quit mincing words about the violence that is committed against the baby when an abortion occurs. The means of conception is irrelevant once there is a new life created. The backpedaling and spin just confuse the issue and make our candidates sound like pansies.

That said, pro-life candidates must learn to never say the words “rape,” “God,” and “abortion” in in the same sentence in public forums. EVER. It’s always a trap and no good ever comes from it. Put this advice in all the conservative campaign handbooks.

It’s a never ending nightmare. Let Akin and Murdock lose to teach them a lesson. I have voted for social conservatives my whole life, but am rapidly losing patience with these massive gaffes. They are moving out of the mainstream with this new line of argument and I’m not going along for the ride.

Yeah Billy, throw the stupid Christians under the bus and behold the gaggle of RINOs and Socialists swarming in to fill the vacuum. Anybody in this day and age that believes every child is a gift from God needs to be thrown out of their profession.

While you’re at it, get ahold of the names of each and every gynocologist who ever suggested to wanna-be parents that the best way to ensure pregnancy is to have a relaxed, loving environment during intercourse. Throw them out too.

I think Mourdock’s answer showed honest wrangling with what is a potent moral dilemma for most people. You may disagree with his conclusions but this was much more sensitive and thoughtful than the knee-jerk “my body my choice” retort usually heard from the pro-abortion activist community.

Could you please tell me why anyone running for public office should be talking in public about private thoughts and convictions that have nothing to do with their future office? We all have come to opinions about many things in our lives that are truly our opinions and are not required to carry out the job assignment of a public service job. In some ways the very fact that this simple minded people who may indeed be “Good” people answer such questions almost makes them unsuitable for the job they are seeking. I mean that every job has a decorum that goes with it and unless this fool wants to be a priest or abortion counselor he should stick to the subjects that he will deal with. Think of all of the issues that most of us would never answer questions on because they are private and may not be PC. They are still our opinions and we may truly believe them but we do not need to share them with the sharks in the msm. I agree with your statement that “Rape, God and abortion” should never be not only used in the same sentence but should not even be mentioned to the msm. If they would only ask themselves “What is the best and the worst thing that can come from my rape, God or abortion statement”?

Here’s the answer: “It’s a terrible situation. The woman has been brutalized and victimized. She’s suffered terribly and is in terrible pain. That brings us all great anguish. The unborn child is completely innocent. It doesn’t deserve to die because the biological father is vicious criminal. There are many people alive today whose conception was the result of rape. Should they have been terminated in utero? I think most of them, and the people they love, would say no.”

Do you want to elect Republicans for the sole purpose of Electing Republicans?
or
Do you want to elect Republicans in order to accomplish something.

If the latter, then you have to be honest and stand by your honesty (as this candidate is doing)
The reason we defeated Lugar is he used the Canned Talking Points, got elected and stabbed those who elected him in the back.

Exactly right. This is a political debate. You’re going to get the question. Think it through in advance, imbeciles. Is it too late to bring back Lugar, because Mourdunce is already behind on intrade, and is going down with his moronic friend Akin.

Mourdock only said what he honestly believed; that God intends that life should flourish even when brought about through means. Others might disagree with him, but why is the idea itself so offensive or over-the-line? Republicans should stand by Richard Mourdock, whose only crime was telling it like it was.

Richard Mourdock is a decent, thoughful man who has shared an opinion. We can agree or disagree, but the manic leftist witch hunt is absurd and Republicans, for once, should refrain from piling on. In this respect, I’m deeply disappointed in Mike Pence, who is normally a standup guy. In the grand scheme, Job One is to secure a Senate majority, the bigger the better, and demote the wicked Harry Reid.

I have read Mourdock’s exact words, and his subsequent “explanations”, and he has stated unequivocally that God intends life to come from rape, that God controls the universe, and that biology doesn’t operate in an uncontrollable fashion.

The ONLY rational, logical interpretation of that is that God intends rapists to impregnate certain victims. That God controls all, including rapists, their victims, and whether or not conception will occur. That basically makes rapists the instruments of God’s will.

Sorry, but I’m not the stupid one. You can call names all day long like the itty bitty baby boy you are, but Mourdock’s words are out there for all to read. He can’t unring the bell now, kiddo. What’s done is done.

In a sense, they are agents of God. God uses evil people for his own ends. God sent Nebuchadnezzer against Judah to punish her for her sins. That didn’t make Nebuchadnezzer good, for he wasn’t choosing to attack Judah because he wanted to be an agent of God’s justice, but because he was greedy. God soon judged Babylon for her own sins and released Judah from her captivity at the appointed time. God raises nations and throws them down. God creates life and appoints the length of our days. God judges sin and brings forth good even out of evil. Most importantly, it is blasphemy to take it upon yourself to do evil that good may come of it. Rape is never justified, even though God may determine that a child should be conceived because of it.

Nora baby. Ever read the Bible? Do you have any clue what you are talking about?

God knows the baby (or tumor to you) before the universe was created and the mother and the rapist and everyone with they will ever cross paths with until the second they will die, which He also knows. It’s an unfathomably intricate and interrelated plan.

You can go with that or go with “kill the baby, fire the Christian”. OK, it is the simpler choice.

The Bible says: “There is a way that seems right to a man, but the end thereof is always the way of death.” See? He knows you too.

I don’t refer to unborn babies as “tumors”. You’re the only one who has done that. I’ve always referred to unborn babies as “children”, “human beings”, “babies”, or “unborn babies”. Please try to keep up with the discussion.

Your personal beliefs regarding the god you worship are just that: your personal beliefs regarding the god you worship. We don’t base law on your personal beliefs about the god you worship. Sorry, but that’s a non-starter.

I’m not sure what “firing the Christian” has to do with anything. We have laws that protect citizens from being fired for their religious beliefs. If you know of such a case, I suggest the person who’s been fired discuss all possible recourse with an attorney.

I’m not shy about my position, and I don’t pretend it’s anything other than what it is — I believe women who’ve been impregnated via rape should have the legal right to obtain an abortion if they choose to do so. Yes, that abortion is the killing of an unborn child. I’ve never said otherwise.

Nora, save your breath. I understand what you’re trying to say, but please note: NOT ONE of the … um, er, people arguing “the woman MUST carry to term a baby of rape” is a woman! And it’s this that makes women so leery of Repub. politicians that say sh!t like this. Perhaps it’s the diff. in Protestant religions — some believe in predestination, some don’t. Neither you, me, nor prob. G*d could change their minds.

Me, I would kill myself rather than bear a child of rape. So which would be the worst “sin”? I bet these are also the so-called “men” who think they should rule over women. Run-of-the-mill abortion, confused with birth control, is not for me, and should be more strictly controlled. But in cases of rape & incest? It was NOT a “fault” of the woman, who did nothing wrong. To force her to live with this every day of her life, for the next ___ yrs. is sick & sadistic. Well, it is to those who can actually think what that would be like.

Nora, what about Adoption. The child did not rape its mother. There’s no reason why the mother might want to raise that child, but every reason why the mother might be asked to carry that child to term so that loving parents can raise the child to be a better human being than the father.

And let’s bear this in mind. Imagine if that was the only child the mother has. Later in life, knowing this, she may want to reach out to that child, knowing that it is a much her’s as the rapist’s.

Adoption does not solve the problem of being forced to undergo a pregnancy for nine months. This matter is only ever the rape victim’s decision. Trying to coerce a rape victim by planting the fear of infertility doesn’t make you much better than the rapist, especially in light of your other comments.

Do all of you realize how stupid you are to be calling each other names in the name of God? Why in the hell does this subject come up only among conservatives or Republicans? Because it has only negative results for them with the msm. I’m sorry I do not want to know what your deeply held beliefs are when you run for a public office. I do not need to know and neither does the msm. If you and your elected representatives are that stupid then you deserve each other. Name me one issue that the left in this country HAVE to answer to? They can be for gun control although they will equivocate. They can be asked about taxes but they will use the term “Balanced” along with “Fair share”. Pick any question that they have to answer and they will get a pass on it from the msm.

In the case of rape, why punish the child for the crime of the father? I support adoption programs for such unwanted children, but the unintended consequences of abortion don’t do anyone any good. Murder is still a more serious crime than rape, and we all know that two wrongs don’t make a right.

The holocaust murdered six million innocent Jews, but in the U.S. alone abortion has murdered SEVENTY MILLION (and counting) innocent babies.

Women who choose abortion after rape are not punishing the child for the crimes of the father. They are choosing to end further violation of their person. The intention is not to kill the child for the father’s crime. The intention is to prevent their body from being usurped for another nine months.

You may have noticed that many Jews have blonde hair and blue eyes–more like Europeans than Middle Easterners. Why do you suppose this is?

During the Diaspora, many Jewish women were raped by their “Christian” overlords. As testimony to their piety and rectitude, not only did these godly woman carry the rapists’ bastards, they quietly raised them as their own.

Were their bodies usurped? Yes, but Jews have had their rightly authority and place in history usurped for nearly two millennia–1980 years, to be precise. WHAT IS NINE MONTHS BY WAY OF COMPARISON?

God bless these long suffering victims of injustice. May it please Him to set His people over those who hate them.

Know this, Nora: mercy triumphs over judgment and judgment without mercy will be shown to the merciless. Pray, do not council others to take innocent life. You are risking your own soul and theirs, too.

Stop threatening rape victims with infertility Edward. It’s a sick thing to do. Conceiving is not that difficult at all for most women. Follow the thread if you want to know the false claim I was refuting.

Usurped by her own child doing exactly what he or she is supposed to do? How is such a thing even possible? No, to determine that the child must die because he or she was conceived in rape is to issue a death sentence against the child for the crime of the father.

Her body is being usurped by a pregnancy forced upon her by a violent crime. Her body was used against her will during the rape, and may be used against her will by a subsequent pregnancy. If she chooses that her body not be used against her will, if she chooses to terminate that pregnancy, to prevent her body from being used in such a way, then the termination of the unborn child is the unfortunate collateral damage of her right to choose not to allow her body to be used against her will. Just like innocent bystanders who are killed during acts of war. Same difference.

No one has said the child MUST die. The only people operating in absolutes like that are the more stringent prolifers here. They are saying the woman MUST be forced to carry to term. What I and others are saying is rape victims ought to have that choice available to them because of the unique circumstances of the situation.

Yes indeed. Not only that, why should the decision be Mourdock’s choice, or Akin’s? Both are entitled to their opinions (some, including me, see only threadbare conjecture by guys who ain’t too sharp), but what right do they assert to slap their opinions on a rape victim, insisting all the while that they know better? The woman, a true victim, likely needs help more than sanctimonious browbeating. Abortion is murder because we believe it’s murder? Baloney. What’s next, every sperm is sacred (pace Woody Allen)? The logic of the official Catholic view that life begins at conception is irrefutable, but as a practical guide — a fertilized egg is a baby? — it’s near useless.

The conservatism many of us identify with is based on individual liberty and personal responsibility — in practice, that means the raped woman’s opinions prevail in all cases where fetal viability isn’t an issue. She remains accountable for her actions and will live with her decision. The rest is well above the pay grade of us mortals, especially including whack-a-doodle moralists, though the boldest of the bold may, with great care, discern a tenth amendment issue reserved to “the states or the people”.

You’re talking to statists who know better than you do and they presume they have the right to speak for their god.

Whether rape or broken condom or incorrect pill formulation or a simple forgetful day or even plain bad luck, get preggers and you’re less than human, a walking incubator whether you like it or not. Their philosophy is bumper sticker level banality that would embarrass Bart Simpson — “Sucks to be you!”

Somehow I doubt that this is what their god had in mind, but then again I’m not imagining to know gods mind or speak for him/her accordingly.

Personally I tend to wonder why god seems to choose US based caucasian evangelical morons to speak for him/her. Seems rather suspicious. Wouldn’t god choose an African once in a while just to keep it real?

Really… you really believe that there are no Black or other minority right-to-lifers?

Personally, I tend to be pro-choice, since I have no real convictions on the fetus being a baby at a particular point in development. I am pretty sure there is some point where that occurs, but my convictions on it aren’t clear enough to mandate a date. OTOH, I can see where if you honestly believe a fetus/zygote/whatever is a human being, trying to keep that human from being killed would be your duty. Pretending that someone who is trying to save the life of a baby is somehow a woman-hater is self-deluding at best, blatant trafficking in murder for political gain at worst. Only you know which of those or what point in between applies to you.

The baby must be punished, that is euthanized, because it is evil. Children of rape or incest are evil and must be killed. All good left wingers believe this. And it part of the brainwashing that major universities require for you to graduate.

it may be that the GOPe and friends have decided not to pull their support and not to demand the “murder” of mr mourdock exactly because of God’s defense, through His people, of todd akin. win or lose (and i pray for a win despite his being outspent 7 to 1), todd akin is a watershed for conservatism in this country and represents my hope that we will receive God’s mercy. His will be done. thank God we have people like akin and mourdock speaking out and standing up for innocent, unborn life. please help our conservative champions at richardmourdock.com and akin.org.

As I agree with Mourdock, his – somewhat – awkward answer (and even more misrepresented by a hostile media) will not cause me to change my vote.

As Lugar leaned left anyway, losing the Indiana senate race to that schmuck Donnelly wouldn’t be the end of the world anyway. Besides, I suspect Republican control of both houses and the presidency will produce more of the Bush profligacy anyway.

That’s why the mourdock gaffe hurts more. Donnell is enough of a forthright centrist that he has potential for higher office. Mccaskill is the kind of clown you can always point to as a typical dem idiot.

What Mourdock actually said (as opposed to what the MSM and the Dems are twisting it into and what Ms. Johnson is once again happy to re-broadcast here) wasn’t bad at all, and is a perfectly defensible thing for someone who is pro-life to have said. It wasn’t even remotely similar to the nonsense that Akin spouted in Missouri.

It would be nice, just every once in awhile for a change of pace, to have Republican leaders leave the smearing and lying about Republican candidates to the press and to the Democrat party (BIRM) instead of doing half or more of the work for them. It’s disgusting and cowardly. BTW, Mourdock is still going to win that Senate seat despite this smear campaign and despite the feckless cowardice of his “allies”. I expect he’s too nice a guy to do it, but after he wins, it would be entirely understandable if he told some of those Republican “allies” to go to h*ll when they want his vote on something in the Senate.

Just look at your letter. It is vitriolic and vengeful and makes me wonder why you or Murdock would even want to run for office. Being in the Senate is a team effort or have you not noticed it? If he does win and goes there with a chip on his extreme pro-life shoulder as you suggest then he has no business being in the Senate. Don’t you understand that the public does not care? Look at Obama and his stand on killing the aborted babies that are still alive afterwards. No one cares! Demorats could not care less. Only the pro-life crowd makes this a litmus test for their candidates. Do you really think that a good Senator has to be pro-life or pro-choice to be a good one? Why do you need to know?

It will be interesting to see how damning Mourdock’s gaffe will be, and not just for him. Looking around the country, it appears many are becoming sour to the Tea Party extremist. Bachmann and West are facing serious challenges despite massively outspending their opponents. Joe Walsh appears to be toast. Olympia Snowe’s Maine seat was expected to go FOP and now looks to go to Independent Angus King. Kent Conrad’s ND seat was expected to go GOP and is now Heitkamp is neck and neck with Rick Berg. has sought re-election, as expected. Instead, she decided to retire, and now her seat is likely to go to Angus King. Scott Brown’s sinking and Dems may even take a strong GOP AZ seat. And then of course we have Todd Akin.

With all these cliff hangers, including the White House, don’t be surprised if Richard (We Don’t Need No Stinkin Compromise) Mourdock did more than to just stump his own toe.

As long as you clods are happy to shout “extremist” at the TEA Partiers, it allows those who really are “extreme” to fly under the radar. Squishy Repugnicons and libtard Demonrats are the true enemies of freedom.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

The only “extreme” about the TEA Parties is how “extremely” mainstream they really are. It’s depressing.

What “feigned indignation”? I’ve limited my comments to one very specific set of circumstances. You know nothing at all about my political leanings.

I find any permutation of the word “retard” disgusting. That it comes from someone who claims to be prolife is telling, although not surprising. And “trumped”…by this guy “Hoosier”…? Um, no. Try again.

Do you have a point, or are you here to name call? Can you address the specific topic at hand or not?

I am consistently pro-life. Including for unnecessary capital punishment, although I do believe in “Just War” doctrine and, of course, self defense when necessary.

I take your point on the “tard” euphemism. I suppose it is only just to differentiate between those who are born with diminished capacity and those who achieve diminished capacity by their own efforts – or lack thereof. “Libturd” doesn’t quite work for me, as manure has some use. “Libtard” rolls off the tongue more easily than “delusionsl dumbfck” and may more easily get past site censors. Do you have another alternative in mind?

arhooley — the tea party has been usurped by the social conservatives for some time now, sorry. What was once quasi-libertarian and somewhat respectable for that reason is now the domain of the religious right. Sen Jim DeMint had a lot to say about this, that you can’t be a tea partier and not be his notion of social conservative.

e.g. school vouchers would be a believable argument *IF* the focus was on districts arguing to teach more physics and biology and cut out sports or other legitimate concerns well over and above state requirements. However if you dig down the actual basis is typically the religious far right types trying to find ways to prevent teaching of evolution, etc. It’s not a legit argument at all.

This is something that the far right has been fighting for decades. In the 90′s and early 2000′s they (finally!) learned they can’t fight science itself so they made a new “science” theory up called “Intelligent Design” (ID). It failed. Along came the tea party and now using tea party arguments they argue for local control. This is merely the replacement for ID (which conveniently enough one rarely hears about any more) as the basis for rejecting evolution. In other words the fight went from fighting science (“prove it!”) to attempting to use science (“see, we’re scientific, we’re callling our dogma a theory!”) to tossing this aside in favour of a constitutional local control argument that is a ride on the back of the tea party.

If the tea party weren’t so co-opted we would all still be hearing about ID but we’re not. What started out as a legit and reasonable movement has been ruined.

#randomengineer, you’re exactly right! I live in Denver, and was thinking about attending the TEA Party Express mtg. in mid-Sept., UNTIL I went to their website. Here’s the ltr I wrote in response:
* * * * *
I have a question, or perhaps more a complaint. I’ve been in complete agreement with the T.E.A. party since it’s inception, and totally agree with T.P.E.’s “six simple principles.” However, what I do NOT understand is why T.P.E. is allowing itself to be hijacked by continuing to allow people such as Lloyd Marcus to post repeatedly on its home page. He is what I can only call a radical Christian; these people seem to have 1 thing and 1 thing only on the brain: banning abortion.

I originally understood the Tea Party (and offshoots, such as yours) to be all about the money! You know, debt, deficit, drunken spending, etc., which go hand-in-hand with getting the @*&#^% intrusive govn’t out of our lives as well as stopping the incredible flow of new regulations that every day make their way onto the books.

However, this election is a referendum on Obama & his minions, NOT a platform for ANY religion. Yes, I too want America to return to prosperity, but we can’t even begin to take the first step unless we vote out the current admin. The only way to do this is to focus on economic issues, NOT SOCIAL ISSUES. There are many, many people like me — those who would rather go down swinging than let the govn’t take over our whole lives, but for whatever reason cannot back any person/group which appears to want to abrogate one bunch of rules, only to substitute as many of their own.

In short, WTH? Let the religious go their own way, do their own thing, maybe even have a (insert religion here) “_____ Tea Party”, instead of allowing them to co-opt a movement that while might have many reps of (whatever religion) in it, that is not its main point or thrust. Sorry to end with an old slogan, but in this case it really IS “the economy, stupid.” Case closed.

Hoosiertoo, if you feel that Bachmann, West, et al, are mainstream, I’m unsure what to tell you. Your very own definition of “the true enemies of freedom” disqualifies you from any consideration of credibility.

Ronald, what is the fascination with “mainstream”? I case you haven’t noticed, in the view of almost the entire world the entire American experiment is not “mainstream”. George Washington was not “mainstream”. Let’s just go with the flow and let’s all be “mainstream”. Is that it?. Mainstream and the mushy middle got us into the mess that we find ourselves in today.

It’s patently obvious from his statement that Mourdock said if a woman gets pregnant as the result of a rape, God intended for THAT LIFE to occur. How anyone can interpret that to mean he said God intended for rape to occur is mind-boggling.

Nope. I think women who’ve been forcibly impregnated via rape should have the choice whether or not to continue their pregnancy.

Mourdock’s statement was neither thoughtful or mature, nor were his subsequent comments re God controlling the universe and not believing biology can act “uncontrollably”.

Words have meaning. He obviously either didn’t think his words through, making his words thoughtLESS, not thoughtful, or he really believes this stuff, indicating a lack of maturity.

Again, no one can argue the points. All you can do is call names in response. Guess you don’t have anything to support your claim that abortion should be criminalized for forcibly impregnated rape victims. Just wish you’d man up and actually state your beliefs instead of trying to deflect and distract by acting like a big wimpy baby and calling me names. Oh well.

I don’t support government funding for almost anything, much less abortion.

Taking snippets of sentences out of context is not helpful. If a rape victim believes carrying a resulting pregnancy to term constitutes further violation of her body, then she ought to have the right to choose to abort (and, thankfully, in this country she does).

Nora’s point is clearly the common sense one. You are taking away a woman’s liberty and choice to force her to carry a criminal’s foetus for nine months if she does not want to. Some of you have yourselves a real loser of a position here, one that I would guess 90% of the American public would reject, even if Sharia law says otherwise. As for Mourdock’s comments, they are all over the net on video. He sounds sincere and humble, but you just can’t take such a position.

How can Mourdock want the right to be a legislator, when he abdicates his responsibility to protect his citizens by refusing to make laws that would allow them to limit the damage done to them by criminals?!

Mourdock’s pretending the will of the rapist IS the will of god, and so there’s no way he’d want to infringe on that right – like, say by making a law that allows the woman VICTIM to choose whether – or NOT – to keep the rapist’s un-asked-for spawn!

Hands-off, delinquent negligence like he’s advocating for, would only end up populating our Western world with the spawn of rapists – sort of like the moslems have inflicted on the middle east for the last 1,400 years!

“shit happens, life is good” is a very good, succinct way to put it! But you have to remember that for many liberals, good=pleasure. There is nothing deeper, no awareness that joy is more than pleasure, so they won’t get it. Mature Christians recognize that sometimes, God allows bad things to happen because He knows the best path to Heaven for each and every one of us, and then He calls us home at the time when we have the best chance for eternity with Him. God has a plan and no, He doesn’t want anyone to commit nor suffer rape but sometimes He allows a child to be created because of it. And no matter the situation, we have the ability to draw goodness from it. (Personally, I have to recognize that if I hadn’t been abused by a priest, I would never have gotten involved in helping to shut down the Legion of Christ cult. No, I don’t thank God, but I have definitely stopped asking “Why me?”)

Really, this discussion comes down to the question of whether you’re a godless atheist who believes that the contents of one’s womb after conception are a mere chemical reaction and pairing of male and female DNA or something more. Something with a soul over which God has creation authority. There is a deep chasm between those two worldviews and an entirely different vernacular.

Sadly, in the heat of the campaign, Democrats use the emotional issue of rape (which accounts for a extremely, ridiculously small number of abortion decisions) to twist deep religious convictions into something sick and outlandish. It cheapens the arguments of both sides and prevents any thoughtful discussion of this important issue during the campaign.

” Democrats use the emotional issue of rape (which accounts for a extremely, ridiculously small number of abortion decisions) to twist deep religious convictions into something sick and outlandish.”

But once you ignore the mother’s wishes in such a case, you are promoting something sick and outlandish. A conservative would have no qualms blasting a liberal about the extreme consequences of any position they take. Do you expect different treatment from the left? Alas, when the act of believing trumps common sense, even decency, beware.

When and where were Mourdock’s comments made? And what was the full context in which the words were placed? Bridget, you need need to get your act together and provide PJM readers with the surrounding facts before you come online to announce startling new developments. Just on the surface, I would think that Mourdock needs a swift boot up the side of the bead for his half-baked comments. But I have no idea when and where they came from or what context they were couched in.

P.S., Mark Levin, who has gone to the mat for Mourdock, is going to kill this fck if he does not have a good explanation for these late-breaking comments. OBVIOUSLY any woman who became pregnant as the result of rape CANNOT be questioned re her personal decision about bringing the pregnancy to term. Anybody who believes otherwise is a akin to a freaking Islamist who believes that God has no concern for the sufferings of innocent victims of violence most foul.

No no. Levin is a four-star general in the Tea Party movement. You mess with Levin … well, don’t even thing about it. I have since come to learn that the Left is doing their usual twist job on Mourdock’s comment in the debate. This is what pissed me off about Bridget’s initial post. It was all wee-wee without any context.

The problem is, national candidates who are so tin-eared that they march right into a gotcha question without even thinking first. And it’s also a problem because to win elections, the GOP has to win votes from women who have been at least somewhat indoctrinated by Feminism and are not as clear-thinking as we would like.

Then wouldn’t an impregnated rape victim’s subsequent abortion be part of God’s plan, too? If EVERYTHING is part of God’s plan (which is not what all Christians believe by any means), then any abortion is God’s plan. And every murder, every rape, every case of pedophilia, every crime, every disaster, every disease, etc.

You can’t pick and choose what is God’s plan as it suits your agenda, or claim you know God’s will about everyone and everything and then lay down the law accordingly.

Religious people are so self centered. They really think a creator of the entire cosmos is planning their next conception in the backseat of their boyfriends car. Conceptions are usually accidents, and God could care less what you do. Sorry, that’s reality and all the believing in the world won’t change that fact.

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

Mr. Mourdock would be better off if he demonstrated some intellectual consistency. If a woman is made pregnant by a rapist and that is what God intended, then he must also say that the rape was what God intended. Very simple. People might disagree with his inserting his view of God into the discussion, but he would at least be consistent.

My dog learned to play fetch at 5 weeks old and learned a few tricks in the following months, and that’s been that. Today he is old and still hasn’t made any major progress; he reached his (limited) potential quickly and that’s that. He’s a dog, after all, and only has so many neurons.

You obviously revel in your childish, dehumanizing behavior. Unfortunately, that behavior negatively impacts the points you’re trying to make. But this was never about anything other than your own ego and the thrill you get trying to bully people on teh interwebs, was it?

So ignore me so I’ll get bored and go away – probably not. As I recall you responded to me @ #8 above; I didn’t engage you. As for randomengineer – I may be an old dog, but I learn new tricks every day. That doesn’t mean I’m so open-minded my brains fall out. FWIW, I’m not a TEA Partier, a “social” conservative (as if there are no “social” liberals for conservatives to oppose) or a Repugnicon. Actually, I’m usually something of a pariah around here whenever I show up to post.

Just one of those “independents” everyone courts this time of the election cycle but doesn’t really want around the rest of the time.

Have yourelves a nice day, and whoever your candidate is I hope he loses. Unfortunately, they can’t ALL lose.

How can this Mourdock tard want the right to be a legislator, when he abdicates his responsibility to protect his citizens by refusing to make laws that would allow them to limit the damage done to them by criminals?!

After all, he’s pretending the will of the rapist IS the will of god, and so there’s no way he’d want to infringe on that right – like, say by making a law that allows the woman VICTIM to choose whether – or NOT – to keep the rapist’s un-asked-for spawn!

Hands-off, delinquent negligence like he’s advocating for, would only end up populating our Western world with the spawn of rapists – sort of like the moslems have inflicted on the middle east for the last 1,400 years!

Now all we need is Whiskey or Fail Burton to say that most of Moudock’s present-day children of god would be a veritable army of Barack Obama, Drake, the Rock et al. and why this would not be a good thing. You actually bring up a good point.

** Nora
I’m not voting for Obama, but a few things these past few weeks have changed my vote from Romney to Gary Johnson. Not the least of which are many of the comments in these comboxes. **

Omg, Nora, pls. do NOT waste your vote! We MUST get rid of Obama, and a vote for anyone but Romney might as well BE a vote for good ol’ Barry Hussein. And yes, I do understand what you’e saying (see the last post under #3). Actually, I too like Gary J., but thee MOST important thing right now is to rid this country of its #1 scourge — BHO.

“And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I
return; the LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the
name of the LORD.”

If everything which transpires is the will of the LORD, then who is to say that they directly know his will? Why is an abortion, in the case of rape, not the LORD’s will? Perhaps he is instructing a young woman in her ethical duties, and approves of the abortion. Life and Death are the same to Him. Those of you who claim to know his will directly are abusing the Commandments! I believe that there is a little verse claiming ‘Judgement is Mine.’ I don’t recall that said judgement was delegated to a bunch of bloggers, nor to a bunch of Congressmen, nor, indeed, to a bunch of Clergy? If we are intended to have free will, then the choice must be the woman’s.

I tire of Democrats and the Pr–Choice crowd always trotting out the Rape & Incest Canard to justify Abortion.

Such a small percentage of Unwanted Pregnancies occur as a result of Rape & Incest that they are statistical outliers.

Children are not a commodity to be purchased at your convenience, like a box of Cheerios. The opportunity to have a child comes when it comes and is all bled out of you before you know you wanted that opportunity. There are many women in their 40′s and 50′s today who regret having been so sensible and so sensitive to their own perceived needs and rights when they were in their 20′s and 30′s. There is nothing convenient about having children – and much worth the inconvenience. Even the trauma of rape.

But then again, it is a question of Faith. I suspect people like Nora have not fully ascended up the Ladder of Reason and come to that place where Faith transcends it.

What Mourdock said was far more honest and heartfelt than most Democrats will ever dare to say. It was clumsy, but that which is honest and heartfelt often is. Liars have the time to polish their words before saying them.